Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: qt4: Qt GUI toolkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=188180 ------- Additional Comments From kevin@xxxxxxxxx 2006-05-16 22:59 EST ------- (using the spec/src.rpm from comment #88 and the patch in comment #90) Hopping into the wayback machine for comment #47: :) >> 3. What does this comment refer to? >> # Not sure how to use, where to put this, yet -- Rex >The item right below it: >Source1: qt.conf >The qt documentation mentions the use of qt.conf to set qt options, and I'd like >to be able to set some global ones, but it wasn't clear to me where to put it. >From looking around, it looks like this is a file that an application can use to override the default paths that qt uses to look for things. So, I think it's safe for this package to not ship one. >From comment #56: >(Maybe future versions of rpm will allow to uninstall %doc files, and %lang files.) The future is here now. ;) rpm --excludedocs >From comment #58: >We're starting to find quite a few interesting interdependancies between -devel >and -doc. qtdemo was one (it depended on the demos/examples from -doc, so I >was moving it to -doc), then I found assistant (in -devel) tries to auto-load >qt documentation on startup (and fails, obviously, if -doc/-docs isn't >installed). I'm beginning to doubt the wisdom of even doing a -doc subpkg... >who knows how many more interdendancies may exist. At the moment, I'm leaning >toward dropping the notion of a -doc subpkg, and move it all (back) to -devel >(mostly for sake of simplicity). > >Comments/opinions? What about just putting the doc/html area in doc, and both demos and examples back in devel. That would move off a large amount of docs and would get rid of all these wacky requirements. The doc subpackage would just have html stuff in it. assistant and qtdemo could move back to devel. This is much more what a doc package should be. Examples and demos should be things you need devel for to use anyhow, IMHO. Thoughts? >From comment #58: > Great. The only drawback is that doing so makes parallel installs impossible > (or at least a lot harder). No biggie. I'll play around with that to consider > later... let's see if we can get this approved in < 100 comments. (: Thats too bad. Having it parallel installable would be nice. :( Not a blocker though I guess. Looking at the -19 spec I don't see you using -headerdir, -datadir, and -sysconfdir, just -libdir. So does that mean it's still easily parallel installable? New items: 1. On the desktop-install, shouldn't the vendor be: 'fedora'? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#desktop 2. It still doesn't build for me even with the patch from comment #90. I get: RPM build errors: File not found by glob: /var/tmp/qt4-4.1.2-19.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/qt*config* File not found: /var/tmp/qt4-4.1.2-19.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/qt3to4 File not found by glob: /var/tmp/qt4-4.1.2-19.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/rcc* File not found: /var/tmp/qt4-4.1.2-19.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/share/doc/qt4-4.1.2/html File not found by glob: /var/tmp/qt4-4.1.2-19.fc6-root-mockbuild/usr/bin/qt*demo* -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review